Ideal solution is much like the Southwest vs Stevens Aviation trademark "trial by armwrestling".
Play up the match for tons of good PR and geek cred, play for charity plus the rights to the trademark, then whoever wins immediately grants unlimited rights to the trademark to the losing party.
Bethesda can say they defended their trademark, everyone gets good PR, charities get money, everyone is saved an expensive court case (that Bethesda probably can't win without spending loads of money on) and the world (via a bit of apparent insanity) becomes just a little more sane.
Especially as Firefox is *the* browser with most vulnerabilities.
Citation please? Actually don't bother, because the statement is impossible to support with any amount of evidence. Firefox is the only major browser that openly reports vulnerabilities so of course it is going to have the highest publicly countable number. And even if you had an accurate count of known vulnerabilities from the other vendors, known vulnerabilities hardly equates to total vulnerabilities, even less so when every vulnerability is counted as equal to every other one.
The police report says the man had 2 knives and a broken bottle. 1 knife and 1 bottle had been thrown and the man was advancing towards them with the second knife in hand when they put three shots into his chest.
What isn't clear from the report or the video available:
How far away the guy was when they resorted to lethal force, could be considered important considering at least one of the officers was armed with a taser. Where bystanders are in relation to the threat, was a man with a knife a bigger threat than firing a weapon on a crowded train platform? Just how drink the guy was. Granted, throwing a knife isn't as easy as the movies look, but either the guy was pretty far away or very drunk based on the lack of accuracy on his throw (missed by a good 4 ft). I'd find it harder to believe a man who is falling down drunk is a legitimate threat
They aren't protesting this incident except as an excuse to protest against past behavior. Most of the anger being displayed would probably be better directed at the killing of Oscar Grant where an unarmed and restrained man was shot at point blank range (presumably due to the officer unintentionally drawing his gun when he meant to draw his taser). Having another seemingly similar incident occur involving the BART police force is just fanning the flames that were started years ago.
Unfortunately, unlike the Oscar Grant case, there doesn't seem to be any video of the most recent incident. And given the number of coverups involving excessive use of force in recent years, people just don't trust the official line anymore. People hear things like "less than 25 seconds after officers arrived on the scene officers fired three rounds into Hill's chest, foregoing the use of an available taser" and they start to wonder about the circumstances regardless if the doubt is really warranted in this particular case.
The BART is a slow rail system for the San Fransisco Bay area, with it's very own police force that has a history of abuse, corruption, and at least arguably, murder. This has begun pissing people off so they protested by disrupting service on the BART lines, people in charge of BART decided to hamper the protestors communication by cutting power to BART owned cell repeaters in the tunnels; areas serviced directly by the cell providers' towers were unaffected. This action, not surprisingly, pissed off a great many people causing additional protests. This time, rather than cutting communication they came in and closed the affected stations, and kicked the protestors out which some people are taking as them cutting service to silence the protestors, but, considering the protestors were wandering onto the tracks and preventing trains from leaving that argument is pretty moot IMO.
dealing with protests by first cutting off people's ability to communicate, then when people get annoyed by THAT, they just shut stations completely?
Eh, I can't blame them for closing stations, considering that the stations they closed had protestors on the tracks, blocking trains from leaving. Which was a pretty stupid way to protest anyway since you're just going to piss off the other commuters, people who could have been on your side. Now all they'll remember is how those stupid protestors screwed made them late for work or late getting home (bearing in mind that they were already disrupting service).
In this case, Google's own actions caused the FUD. No one outside of Google knows for sure what their long term plans are and while I personally think the primary reason for the acquisition was for the patent portfolio, it isn't impossible that they are planning on starting a major hardware division of their own which could spell all kinds of problems for other Android manufacturers. In fact, I'd say that just about any other major company wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to throw their new weight around, so it's pretty impressive that there's a bit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt rather than enough of it to send everyone else running for the hills.
Important electronics would have been fused into oblivion long before they dropped the thermal charges in. At least, if everyone did their job they should be.
How many deaths were caused by people crossing the street at appropriate crosswalks and with the traffic lights? Better make that illegal. How many deaths playing football in after work leagues? Better make that illegal. How many deaths falling out of bed? Better make that illegal!
I don't say this often, because I try to be generally polite even on the internet, but your logic is retarded. It is what leads to kids not being able to play tag during recess. It is the levels of paranoia that makes an adult male hesitate to help a terrified child because someone might think that they are trying to kidnap them. It is a significant portion of what is wrong with our society: the idea that everything and everyone can, and should, be made as completely safe as possible, regardless of the consequences.
And just so we're absolutely clear, I'd rather live in a world where one or two people die having a water fight than live in a world where someone can arrest an adult for planning a water fight.
Begging the question much? There are all kinds of ways that Google can use what they gain in this acquisition to make money. Including... oh I don't know... selling phones perhaps? And besides, having one hell of a patent shield could absolutely be worth 12.5 billion USD in the long run.
Like most smartphone manufacturers, they're already using the strongest glass that is economically viable which is almost always the part that breaks when a modern phone is dropped. And to be fair, it's a bit of a crap shoot, a small fall at just the right angle can shatter the glass while a dozen falls from a higher height may not. I, for one, have scratches and chips in the metal bezel of my phone, but not a single mark on the glass, and it's over 2 years old now.
I agree with you, that the concept of privacy for our day to day actions is dead. However, until the rest of the world catches up in a moral and ethical sense, it still pays to put the effort into keeping things you want private to be private.
Should it really matter to my boss if I sleep around/get hammered/love comic books? No, but there are enough self appointed moral guardians and just general 'holier than thou' (and the nearly bad 'cooler than thou') that posting any of those things can damage your career. Until society realizes that any non-harmful behavior should, by default be acceptable it's best if you do your best, even if it won't be 100% effective, to hide the inane details of your life as much as possible.
Yeah, because giving someone the ability to life hundreds of pounds, thousands of times a day has zero applications in the nonmilitary world. A certainly, the concept couldn't be modified to help disabled people live fuller lives.
Re:Experiments performed only on 3 test subjects
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
70% removal of cancerous tissues from a terminal patient with no significant side effects (they mention flu like symptoms but I assure you compared to chemo or radiation that isn't even worth mentioning).
Similar treatments have been ineffective. The modifications this team made to the treatment had the potential to be high risk to the patient and had never been attempted before. Trying to modify white blood cells to reproduce much more rapidly than is natural, but not so rapidly as to cause harm to the patient, is a delicate balancing act. One has to wonder how they accomplished it so well on their first try.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 2
To be fair, similar techniques have been tried without success in the past. What this team did different was perform a second modification to the patient's white blood cells encouraging them to multiply rapidly once they were put back into the patient's body. No one really knew what that would do, it's entirely possible that it could have killed the patient outright, which is probably why this first study was so small (only three, highly terminal cases).
The story of the guy who was told he had 3 weeks to live, got this treatment, watched 5 lbs of cancer melt away over the course of the next month, and has been living happily ever after ever since is amazing though. This is the first time in a long time that I've actually had hope for a general cancer cure, hopefully they can generalize it to other cancers and make it cheap and simple enough for your average oncologist to perform.
It'd be like asking, in the days following 9/11, if the public would like to see Muslims excluded from air travel.
Maybe you haven't heard about this little thing called the Patriot Act. At least in your example they're asking the public a specific question, reality had them asking the public "don't you want to catch these terrorists!?", then passing a law damaging all kinds of civil liberties (without most of the people voting for it having ever read it).
but are supposed to be destroyed if there is no conviction.
That is not the case for this system, the DNA is kept on file for at least 2 years, can be kept longer if the police request it, and there are no penalties if the lab 'accidentally' forgets to remove it from the DB after the 2 years are up.
Your DNA is going to be searched every single time DNA is gathered from a crime scene for the rest of your life (and probably beyond), including crimes that have absolutely nothing to do with what you were arrested for, even if no charges were ever filed or if you were found innocent in a court of law. That is being searched without being suspected.
Ok, let's say you get arrested for a felony, they take your DNA swab. I'd agree that that isn't unreasonable (though I would personally argue for requiring a warrant for even that much, but I digress). Then the DA, for whatever reason, decides not to press charges and you're released.
Now, lets say someone gets raped. They take DNA evidence from the attacker and punch it through the database that now includes your information. That is a suspicion-less search, and there are very, very good reasons why they are a bad idea. Specifically, DNA evidence might be 99.99% accurate, but that statement falls to pieces when you have 5 million entries in your database and have no way of weighting one match compared to another. To summarize, you have not been convicted of a crime, but your DNA is being searched every single time DNA is gathered from a crime scene, and that is a major problem.
Not everyone that gets arrested is arrested for an outstanding warrant. You can be arrested for 'Obstructing Justice' for taking a video of police beating an unarmed man as an example. Whether the courts will see it that way or not is another argument, but a police officer can essentially arrest you for anything they want, whenever they want. Unlawful arrest charges against cops are virtually unheard of.
How about orbit? Release your payload at the peak of a maximum speed parabola with a relatively tiny rocket motor attached and you can put small satellites into any orbit you want with very little warning. I suspect there are several groups inside and out of the intelligence agencies who would be very interested in getting an orbital view of a situation with just a few hours lead in time.
Or how about just dropping guided tungsten rods as a precision munition. At 13000MPH you wouldn't even need an explosive payload, just let kinetic energy do it's thing. Not quite as powerful as "rods from the gods" but within easy reach once you get a plane up to those speeds.
Certain forces within the US government (on both sides of the isle but I think the argument can be made for one side more than the other) have shown a willingness to play political chicken with the nation's debt, up to and including using imminent default to attempt to blackmail the US population into a new constitutional amendment. You can't just come out with a 'deal' and say "no no we worked it out after all", investment is about trust, and when scoring political points is more important to the people in control than keeping the US out of default of course the credit rating is going to drop.
It was a poor argument from the get go. Saying that their free speech rights are impeded because people might have trouble finding the site or have trouble accessing the forums is a bit of a stretch.
If you're going to claim first amendment go ahead and claim it right on the subject at hand: Is saying "There's free stuff over there!" protected by the first amendment? Obviously there are arguments to make in both directions along those lines, I just think that if you think the law is crap you should argue against how crappy the law is and not try to squeak by on a technicality.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideal solution is much like the Southwest vs Stevens Aviation trademark "trial by armwrestling".
Play up the match for tons of good PR and geek cred, play for charity plus the rights to the trademark, then whoever wins immediately grants unlimited rights to the trademark to the losing party.
Bethesda can say they defended their trademark, everyone gets good PR, charities get money, everyone is saved an expensive court case (that Bethesda probably can't win without spending loads of money on) and the world (via a bit of apparent insanity) becomes just a little more sane.
Especially as Firefox is *the* browser with most vulnerabilities.
Citation please? Actually don't bother, because the statement is impossible to support with any amount of evidence. Firefox is the only major browser that openly reports vulnerabilities so of course it is going to have the highest publicly countable number. And even if you had an accurate count of known vulnerabilities from the other vendors, known vulnerabilities hardly equates to total vulnerabilities, even less so when every vulnerability is counted as equal to every other one.
The police report says the man had 2 knives and a broken bottle. 1 knife and 1 bottle had been thrown and the man was advancing towards them with the second knife in hand when they put three shots into his chest.
What isn't clear from the report or the video available:
How far away the guy was when they resorted to lethal force, could be considered important considering at least one of the officers was armed with a taser.
Where bystanders are in relation to the threat, was a man with a knife a bigger threat than firing a weapon on a crowded train platform?
Just how drink the guy was. Granted, throwing a knife isn't as easy as the movies look, but either the guy was pretty far away or very drunk based on the lack of accuracy on his throw (missed by a good 4 ft). I'd find it harder to believe a man who is falling down drunk is a legitimate threat
They aren't protesting this incident except as an excuse to protest against past behavior. Most of the anger being displayed would probably be better directed at the killing of Oscar Grant where an unarmed and restrained man was shot at point blank range (presumably due to the officer unintentionally drawing his gun when he meant to draw his taser). Having another seemingly similar incident occur involving the BART police force is just fanning the flames that were started years ago.
Unfortunately, unlike the Oscar Grant case, there doesn't seem to be any video of the most recent incident. And given the number of coverups involving excessive use of force in recent years, people just don't trust the official line anymore. People hear things like "less than 25 seconds after officers arrived on the scene officers fired three rounds into Hill's chest, foregoing the use of an available taser" and they start to wonder about the circumstances regardless if the doubt is really warranted in this particular case.
The BART is a slow rail system for the San Fransisco Bay area, with it's very own police force that has a history of abuse, corruption, and at least arguably, murder. This has begun pissing people off so they protested by disrupting service on the BART lines, people in charge of BART decided to hamper the protestors communication by cutting power to BART owned cell repeaters in the tunnels; areas serviced directly by the cell providers' towers were unaffected. This action, not surprisingly, pissed off a great many people causing additional protests. This time, rather than cutting communication they came in and closed the affected stations, and kicked the protestors out which some people are taking as them cutting service to silence the protestors, but, considering the protestors were wandering onto the tracks and preventing trains from leaving that argument is pretty moot IMO.
dealing with protests by first cutting off people's ability to communicate, then when people get annoyed by THAT, they just shut stations completely?
Eh, I can't blame them for closing stations, considering that the stations they closed had protestors on the tracks, blocking trains from leaving. Which was a pretty stupid way to protest anyway since you're just going to piss off the other commuters, people who could have been on your side. Now all they'll remember is how those stupid protestors screwed made them late for work or late getting home (bearing in mind that they were already disrupting service).
In this case, Google's own actions caused the FUD. No one outside of Google knows for sure what their long term plans are and while I personally think the primary reason for the acquisition was for the patent portfolio, it isn't impossible that they are planning on starting a major hardware division of their own which could spell all kinds of problems for other Android manufacturers. In fact, I'd say that just about any other major company wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to throw their new weight around, so it's pretty impressive that there's a bit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt rather than enough of it to send everyone else running for the hills.
Important electronics would have been fused into oblivion long before they dropped the thermal charges in. At least, if everyone did their job they should be.
How many deaths were caused by people crossing the street at appropriate crosswalks and with the traffic lights? Better make that illegal. How many deaths playing football in after work leagues? Better make that illegal. How many deaths falling out of bed? Better make that illegal!
I don't say this often, because I try to be generally polite even on the internet, but your logic is retarded. It is what leads to kids not being able to play tag during recess. It is the levels of paranoia that makes an adult male hesitate to help a terrified child because someone might think that they are trying to kidnap them. It is a significant portion of what is wrong with our society: the idea that everything and everyone can, and should, be made as completely safe as possible, regardless of the consequences.
And just so we're absolutely clear, I'd rather live in a world where one or two people die having a water fight than live in a world where someone can arrest an adult for planning a water fight.
Begging the question much? There are all kinds of ways that Google can use what they gain in this acquisition to make money. Including... oh I don't know... selling phones perhaps? And besides, having one hell of a patent shield could absolutely be worth 12.5 billion USD in the long run.
Like most smartphone manufacturers, they're already using the strongest glass that is economically viable which is almost always the part that breaks when a modern phone is dropped. And to be fair, it's a bit of a crap shoot, a small fall at just the right angle can shatter the glass while a dozen falls from a higher height may not. I, for one, have scratches and chips in the metal bezel of my phone, but not a single mark on the glass, and it's over 2 years old now.
I agree with you, that the concept of privacy for our day to day actions is dead. However, until the rest of the world catches up in a moral and ethical sense, it still pays to put the effort into keeping things you want private to be private.
Should it really matter to my boss if I sleep around/get hammered/love comic books? No, but there are enough self appointed moral guardians and just general 'holier than thou' (and the nearly bad 'cooler than thou') that posting any of those things can damage your career. Until society realizes that any non-harmful behavior should, by default be acceptable it's best if you do your best, even if it won't be 100% effective, to hide the inane details of your life as much as possible.
and whoosh, HEAT.
How and why does this 'whoosh, HEAT' occur? If it's caused by a nuclear reaction it goes against everything we know about radioactive decay.
Come on, everyone needs a 335,255 HP car.
Yeah, because giving someone the ability to life hundreds of pounds, thousands of times a day has zero applications in the nonmilitary world. A certainly, the concept couldn't be modified to help disabled people live fuller lives.
70% removal of cancerous tissues from a terminal patient with no significant side effects (they mention flu like symptoms but I assure you compared to chemo or radiation that isn't even worth mentioning).
Similar treatments have been ineffective. The modifications this team made to the treatment had the potential to be high risk to the patient and had never been attempted before. Trying to modify white blood cells to reproduce much more rapidly than is natural, but not so rapidly as to cause harm to the patient, is a delicate balancing act. One has to wonder how they accomplished it so well on their first try.
To be fair, similar techniques have been tried without success in the past. What this team did different was perform a second modification to the patient's white blood cells encouraging them to multiply rapidly once they were put back into the patient's body. No one really knew what that would do, it's entirely possible that it could have killed the patient outright, which is probably why this first study was so small (only three, highly terminal cases).
The story of the guy who was told he had 3 weeks to live, got this treatment, watched 5 lbs of cancer melt away over the course of the next month, and has been living happily ever after ever since is amazing though. This is the first time in a long time that I've actually had hope for a general cancer cure, hopefully they can generalize it to other cancers and make it cheap and simple enough for your average oncologist to perform.
It'd be like asking, in the days following 9/11, if the public would like to see Muslims excluded from air travel.
Maybe you haven't heard about this little thing called the Patriot Act. At least in your example they're asking the public a specific question, reality had them asking the public "don't you want to catch these terrorists!?", then passing a law damaging all kinds of civil liberties (without most of the people voting for it having ever read it).
You answered your own question:
but are supposed to be destroyed if there is no conviction.
That is not the case for this system, the DNA is kept on file for at least 2 years, can be kept longer if the police request it, and there are no penalties if the lab 'accidentally' forgets to remove it from the DB after the 2 years are up.
Your DNA is going to be searched every single time DNA is gathered from a crime scene for the rest of your life (and probably beyond), including crimes that have absolutely nothing to do with what you were arrested for, even if no charges were ever filed or if you were found innocent in a court of law. That is being searched without being suspected.
Ok, let's say you get arrested for a felony, they take your DNA swab. I'd agree that that isn't unreasonable (though I would personally argue for requiring a warrant for even that much, but I digress). Then the DA, for whatever reason, decides not to press charges and you're released.
Now, lets say someone gets raped. They take DNA evidence from the attacker and punch it through the database that now includes your information. That is a suspicion-less search, and there are very, very good reasons why they are a bad idea. Specifically, DNA evidence might be 99.99% accurate, but that statement falls to pieces when you have 5 million entries in your database and have no way of weighting one match compared to another. To summarize, you have not been convicted of a crime, but your DNA is being searched every single time DNA is gathered from a crime scene, and that is a major problem.
Not everyone that gets arrested is arrested for an outstanding warrant. You can be arrested for 'Obstructing Justice' for taking a video of police beating an unarmed man as an example. Whether the courts will see it that way or not is another argument, but a police officer can essentially arrest you for anything they want, whenever they want. Unlawful arrest charges against cops are virtually unheard of.
where do you need to go that fast?
How about orbit? Release your payload at the peak of a maximum speed parabola with a relatively tiny rocket motor attached and you can put small satellites into any orbit you want with very little warning. I suspect there are several groups inside and out of the intelligence agencies who would be very interested in getting an orbital view of a situation with just a few hours lead in time.
Or how about just dropping guided tungsten rods as a precision munition. At 13000MPH you wouldn't even need an explosive payload, just let kinetic energy do it's thing. Not quite as powerful as "rods from the gods" but within easy reach once you get a plane up to those speeds.
Certain forces within the US government (on both sides of the isle but I think the argument can be made for one side more than the other) have shown a willingness to play political chicken with the nation's debt, up to and including using imminent default to attempt to blackmail the US population into a new constitutional amendment. You can't just come out with a 'deal' and say "no no we worked it out after all", investment is about trust, and when scoring political points is more important to the people in control than keeping the US out of default of course the credit rating is going to drop.
It was a poor argument from the get go. Saying that their free speech rights are impeded because people might have trouble finding the site or have trouble accessing the forums is a bit of a stretch.
If you're going to claim first amendment go ahead and claim it right on the subject at hand: Is saying "There's free stuff over there!" protected by the first amendment? Obviously there are arguments to make in both directions along those lines, I just think that if you think the law is crap you should argue against how crappy the law is and not try to squeak by on a technicality.